Recent Comments

Prev  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  Next

Comments 78251 to 78300:

78251. chris at 21:42 PM on 31 July 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Perhaps the most interesting/concerning thing is the manner that otherwise smart people are willing to view science through ideological blinkers in support of extreme political views - this applies in spades to those of a libertarian bent. A shame considering that his book "Genome" is IMHO one of the best bits of popular science writing of recent times. I suppose the apparent disconnect between excellent writing of Genome and his dreary and "self-debunked" laissez-faire views that seem to underlie his misrepresentation of climate science, results from the former (description and impacts of genomic discoveries) being both broadly politically-neutral, and amenable to the rather reductionist/dissectionist approach he uses so well....whereas the latter (understanding and honest description of climate science) requires a rather broader and dispassionate approach which is simply incompatible with his politics. Incidentally I'm not familiar enough with Ridley's political views to know whether he considers publically funded science (which forms the mainstay of the research described in "Genome") to be part of the "parasitic bureacracy"....any pointers on that issue form his writing?
78252. Rob Painting at 20:39 PM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Sea level budget over the 2005-2010 period (half of 2010 anyway): Black line is the sea level as observed by satellite altimetry, blue line is the steric (expansion due to warming), red is the ocean mass according to GRACE gravity satellites, and purple is the steric and mass combined. So a reasonable match considering the uncertainty in the datasets. Note the steric component tailing off. See: Balancing the Sea Level Budget - Leuliette & Willis (2011) There's a whole bunch of recent discussion papers at the Oceanographic Society magazine in the link above - for any interested readers.
78253. Rob Painting at 19:57 PM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Albatross - I never expect to convince a faux skeptic, but genuine skeptics can't help but be convinced that global warming is real, it's happening now, and will be a huuuuge problem. But BP does raise an extremely worrying point, one I only hinted at in the post. The thermal component of sea level rise does appear to have slowed in the last decade. Yes, I know short datasets and large uncertainty and all that, but it seems to be the case. Sea level rise on the other hand continues to rise, confirming the accelerated melt observed on the Greenland and West Antarctic icesheets i.e. ice melt has made up a larger proportion of the sea level rise in the 'noughties'. So why is it worrying?. See the paper referenced in this post: Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?. The Role of Ocean Thermal Expansion in Last Interglacial Sea Level Rise - McKay (2011) I'll cut to the chase: "Taken together, the model and paleoceanographic data imply a minimal contribution of ocean thermal expansion to LIG sea level rise above present day. Uncertainty remains, but it seems unlikely that thermosteric sea level rise exceeded 0.4±0.3 m during the LIG. This constraint, along with estimates of the sea level contributions from the Greenland Ice Sheet, glaciers and ice caps, implies that 4.1 to 5.8 m of sea level rise during the Last Interglacial period was derived from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. These results reemphasize the concern that both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets may be more sensitive to temperature than widely thought." And note this recent paper on the Greenland icesheet: Sr-Nd-Pb Isotope Evidence for Ice-Sheet Presence on Southern Greenland During the Last Interglacial - Colville (2011) "These results allow the evaluation of a suite of GIS models and are consistent with a GIS contribution of 1.6 to 2.2 meters to the ≥4-meter LIG sea-level highstand, requiring a significant sea-level contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet." You'll note a great deal of coherency between the papers I'm referencing -the observations seem to fit. The last paper is more worrisome, even in the last interglacial, when the Northern Hemisphere summer saw the brunt of the warming, most of the melt contributing to SLR came from Antarctica.
78254. Killian at 18:44 PM on 31 July 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       So many errors, so little interest in addressing them all... First, Ridley accepts the premise economics is scientific and ignores that it is practically useless due to not accepting the role of resources. I refer him to Steve Keen as one of the few economists who appears to be sane. Second, Ridley essentially accepts people are generous while ignoring over 80 years of intentional conditioning to spend and consume. Third, he ignores that we have also raised the individual above the group for centuries and conned ourselves into believing thus it has always been and thus must it always be. This, of course, ignores that the only sustainable cultures are aboriginal, group-centered, non-consumptive, based entirely on what the ecosystem can provide with a little assistance, and are rooted in shared experience. The simplest rebuttal of Ridley on these scores is the lowest tax rates, least regulation and greatest profits in our history have resulted in the beginning of the end of this era. As for climate, seriously, if he is so illiterate in science that a 40% reduction in plankton is a conspiracy, can anyone take him seriously? And the pejorative turns of phrase regarding issues of common sense identifies him as an ideology-driven man. He is a shining example of the phenomenon described in "The Authoritarians." And when crop reductions of 3% are already being realized due to climate stressors, can we not laugh at his failure to understand the law of the Minimum? For all his education and - I'll take your word for it - brilliance, to cite a single component of extremely complex systems (billions of biota in a handful of soil, e.g.) as something that will save us all is rather embarrassing for him. I don't think this guy is a systems thinker. Well, that's enough. More where that came from, though.
78255. Albatross at 16:45 PM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Rob @58, It is unfortunate that Ken cannot see the absurdity of BP's claim that I quoted above. If people wish to see a correct accounting of the terms in Question then please read Hansen et al. (2011) that Sidd linked to above @54. It is a long document but I highly recommend that people interested in this issue read the paper-- it is an excellent investment of one's time. SteveS @56, Thanks, very interesting. You will most likely not convince BP or Ken though, they will most likely just brush it off or glibly dismiss it.
78256. bill4344 at 16:45 PM on 31 July 2011
       An experiment into science blogging
       Is it kosher to draw attention to this, BTW? Or should it just be left to those who'd find it in the ordinary course of things?
78257. bill4344 at 16:38 PM on 31 July 2011
       An experiment into science blogging
       You don't have a scriptblocker running by any chance, lukeness? Because I counted 12 comments! I figure you'd have to at least allow SkepticalScience itself and perhaps googleapis, judging from a quick check of my own NoScript list for this site.
78258. scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Pirate - just to be clearer, supposing you are wrong - sealevel rise causes significant costs for adaptation - do you accept the principle that your country should be taking responsibility for your countries share of the emissions that caused the problem? This is a question of principle not science - that of assuming responsibility for actions.
78259. lukeness at 15:09 PM on 31 July 2011
       An experiment into science blogging
       It seems to me that the questions regarding comments weren't meaningful, since I couldn't see any comments when I read the post.
78260. Riduna at 14:56 PM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Muoncounter Your assessment of the effects of SLR are spot-on, particularly the certainty that they will cause flooding of low coastal land and river deltas – often among the more heavily populated areas of the planet and certainly among the major food producing areas. The effects on a global population of 10 billion, of whom 7 billion now live in such areas, is not difficult to imagine. What intrigues me is that so many commentators assume that the rate of SLR is either static or linear. It can be neither. SLR is primarily caused by loss of land based snow and ice, particularly polar ice. Even a casual glance at polar ice mass loss data should be sufficient to show that the rate of loss is non-linear, increasing and expected to go on increasing for the rest of this century. Consequently SLR will continue to increase and do so at an increasing rate this century and for centuries to come. The question is how much will it rise by 2100? The answer varies from 1-5m depending on which authority you listen to. What is clear is that even a conservative estimate of 1m SLR by 2100 has the potential to be tremendously damaging since there us no effective defence against SLR which is continuous – and it is certainly not going to stop in 2100.
78261. scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Pirate, it's not hard to make an assessment for what 50-80cm of sealevel rise will do locally. Since is low-end of expectation, I take it you arent actually in denial that this will happen? It's real easy to ignore sealevel effects if your position is that it is not happening. This was subject of public meeting for our city who are already battling a number issues (coastal erosion, salt water excursion in low lying farmland and rising water table in southern suburbs). 50-80cm is no cause for panic but it is a considerable cost to the city and complicated because you have to solve a number of problems all at the same time. Who's paying? Making pious statements about problems of people living on unstable areas is pure diversion. We are only talking about EXTRA pressure created by sealevel rise. This in addition to existing problems. Fertile deltas are always going to be heavily populated. Now lets look at how much displacement from say 80cm of rise, divide by 100 years and work out the required immigration per year. Is your country prepared to take to avoid that conflict?
78262. Composer99 at 11:28 AM on 31 July 2011
       Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
       I've just been reviewing the Monckon Myths page and noticed that this article does not seem to be linked to it yet (even though the later-arriving article on the debate with Denniss has).
78263. From Peru at 11:10 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       A thing that may be useful to show: Sea level rise (detrended) vs. Multivariate ENSO Index From the University of Colorado article: "To compare the global mean sea level to the MEI time series, we removed the mean, linear trend, and seasonal signals from the 60-day smoothed global mean sea level estimates and normalized each time series by its standard deviation. The normalized values plotted above show a strong correlation between the global mean sea level and the MEI, with the global mean sea level often lagging changes in the MEI. Since the MEI has recently sharply increased (coming out of a strong La Niña), we expect the global mean sea level estimates to also reverse their recent downward trend and begin to increase as the La Niña effects wane." In the next months sea level should go up as the global ocean responds to the end of La Niña. We have just to wait and see.
78264. muoncounter at 10:13 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       pirate#47: "There you go." Overpopulation is neither the issue nor the topic here; sea level rise is. What, specifically, are the adaptations that you forecast? Hopefully you have more up your sleeve than either moving inland or building floodwalls.
78265. Bob Lacatena at 09:44 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       48, apiratelooksat50, The point isn't whether any one ecosystem is threatened right now. The point is that there are certainly ecosystems that will be threatened by a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level, if it continues for any length of time, and even more (and sooner) if it accelerates. Hansen makes a decent case for that being a possibility that should be considered, even if any might consider it unlikely.
78266. John Hartz at 09:34 AM on 31 July 2011
       Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
       @pirate #31: Your qualifier, "within reason" does indeed merit further discussion.
78267. spencerd at 08:47 AM on 31 July 2011
       Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
       In a recent press release, Lord Monckton claimed:- * "Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet. * That cost is equivalent to almost 60% of global GDP to 2020. He repeated these figures at his National Press Club debate. Treasury modelling states that the carbon tax will reduce Australian GDP by 0.3% in 2020 ($171 per head per annum)and reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions by 25% over business as usual. Why should a global solution cost 60% of GDP? Not surprisingly, Monckton employs a number of "tricks" to exaggerate the cost of a climate change solution. Firstly he calculates the cost of implementing a solution with NO manmade CO2 emissions. This raises the cost to 0.3%*4 =1.2% of GDP. Next he uses the reduction from 2000 levels (5%) instead of the reduction from business as usual 2020 levels(25%). That multiplies the result by another factor of 5 to get to 6% of GDP. This is still not large enough, so Monckton calculates the gross value of the tax rather than the impact on GDP. Even when calculating the gross value of the scheme, he adds both the tax received and the expenditures from the tax (such as administration, renewable energy support and coal and steel support). By this means, Monckton estimates the net cost of the current scheme as $13 billion per annum or 1% of GDP instead of Treasury's figure of 0.3% This calculation brings Monckton's calculation of the global abatement cost up to 20% of GDP but Monckton has a few more "tricks" up his sleeve. Monckton assumes that the carbon pollution measures only the impact of CO2 - 51% of manmade forcings. He therefore doubles the cost again to allow for eliminating all the other manmade forcings such as methane - bringing us up to 40% of GDP. Of course the Australian carbon tax does tax methane emissions ( as the coal industry will attest to ). Monckton understands that Australia has 2% of global GDP but contributes only 1.2% of global CO2 because we have high energy efficiency. He therefore implicitly assumes that the cost of abatement in countries with low energy efficiency would be the same as Australia's. Multiplying 40% by 2%/1.2% brings Monckton up to his 60% of GDP. Just in case all the tricks haven't been enough to scare the public, Monckton has one last card to play. He calculates the cost per head over a 10 yesr period rather than a cost per year. The cost per head becomes $59,000 instead of $5,900 per head per annum. The bottom line is that Australia will reduce its emissions by 25% over business as usual levels at a cost of 0.3% of GDP per annum or $172 per head per annum. I could only conclude that Lord Monckton deliberately set out to deceive his audiences with a patently ridiculous cost for tackling climate change.
78268. Rob Painting at 08:23 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       KL - "Why would you use the term 'ludicrous'? I checked the numbers BP offered up in support of his argument and they are correct." That's curious Ken, for the best part of 18 months at least you have been proclaiming the ARGO dataset as the best measure of ocean heat content (it is - but still has issues to be resolved), but now it is clear that the oceans are still warming, albeit at a slower rate than the 1990's, the ARGO floats are now worthless?, because of BP's erroneous assertions? That's one big flip-flop.
78269. apiratelooksat50 at 08:19 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Sphaerica @ 45 Respectfully, can you list the ecosystems in trouble so I can reply?
78270. apiratelooksat50 at 08:18 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Muon @ 46 Let me amend my statement based on your version of my statement. "We can and we must adapt to possible changes in sea level." Both of the references you noted may become real, but it is absolutely not going to happen overnight. It will take decades. These people in the developing world really don't have much to move. As a matter of fact, they've been moving back and forth with shifting land masses ever since the regions were settled. I guess it is hard to feel sorry for an affluent person on Pawleys Island, SC who loses their million dollar vacation home due to shifting sands compared to the millions you reference in your links. I know I don't feel sorry for anyone who builds expensive structures in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, or landslides. I bet you don't either. Overpopulation is a real issue in developing countries especially when compared to developed countries. If they choose to live in unstable areas, then I'm not sure what can be done about that. There you go. What is your solution?
78271. Rob Painting at 07:59 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       KL -"This is what Dr Trenberth** said on SKS about the 'Asian sulphates' explanation for the stasis in surface temperatures:........ I know Doc Trenberth disagrees but the paper I linked to @45 doesn't agree with the 0.9w/m2 value often quoted. Furthermore the paper cited (Hatzianastassiou (2011) in Dana's recent post Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols shows a pronounced 'global dimming', particularly the southern hemisphere during the 'noughties '. Just saying you shouldn't get hung up on the 0.9w/m2 figure, be a genuine skeptic on that number.
78272. SteveS at 05:10 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Albatross @51: "There is the (possible) mechanism required for the increase in deep ocean heat content that the "skeptics" keep whining about. " This isn't anything I'm really an expert on, but I do note that there are (at least) two observed mechanism known to allow heat from the surface to interact with the ocean floor (and vice versa): 1. Interannual atmospheric variability forced by the deep equatorial Atlantic Ocean, also discussed here 2. Surface-Generated Mesoscale Eddies Transport Deep-Sea Products from Hydrothermal Vents, also discussed here I don't think heat transport was a main interest in either study, so that information might not be available (so far, I've only found the abstracts). But at least the second paper implies Reynold's numbers high enough to provide for mixing. The discussion of the second also implies that there hasn't been much research into the interaction between the ocean surface and ocean floor, so who knows what will be found if/when people start looking. But they provide decent known mechanisms for ocean surface/floor interactions.
78273. Albatross at 04:10 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Hello Ken, I'll respond to your post @52 as soon as I can find a suitable window of time. For now, I will note that your post is a great example of the blind spot that you have for BP's musings, and I'll note too that BP has still not responded to requests to provide a reputable scientific citation that refutes von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011). Also, I would ask for you to please elaborate on what the implications of this perceived "fundamental inconsistency in the AGW science" are. Are you trying to suggest that the theory of AGW has been overturned? Are you suggesting that it means that climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is grossly overestimated? Thanks.
78274. muoncounter at 03:41 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       pirate#44: "That is certainly adaptable by plants, animals, and human animals." In order to adapt, one must first be aware of the problem. In the case of humans, comments like this are among those that will keep lots of people in the dark. "On the Waccamaw River in coastal SC, ..." Your examples reveal nothing more than confirmation bias. Do you not understand that it is the combination of subsidence due to poor coastal land management and the effects of rising sea level (plus increased storm surge) that are the problems? Or that the point of this article was 3mm/yr measurable now, more to come fairly soon? There is a host of literature detailing the risks of sea level rise; example Dasgupta et al 2007: Sea-level rise (SLR) due to climate change is a serious global threat: The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions and associated global warming could well promote SLR of 1 m in this century, and unexpectedly rapid breakup of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets might produce a 3–5 m SLR. ... Our results reveal that tens of millions of people in the developing world are likely to be displaced by SLR within this century; and accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for many. At the country level results are extremely skewed, with severe impacts limited to a relatively small number of countries. Another is Nicholls et al 2008: This paper explores for the first time the global impacts of extreme sea-level rise, triggered by a hypothetical collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). As the potential contributions remain uncertain, a wide range of scenarios are explored: WAIS contributions to sea-level rise of between 0.5 and 5 m/century. Together with other business-as-usual sea-level contributions, in the worst case this gives an approximately 6-m rise of global-mean sea level from 2030 to 2130. Global exposure to extreme sea-level rise is significant: it is estimated that roughly 400 million people (or about 8% of global population) are threatened by a 5-m rise in sea level, just based on 1995 data. -- both emphases added Yet all you can offer is 'we can adapt'.
78275. Bob Lacatena at 02:47 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       44, apiratelooksat50,

       A change from 0.5 mm/yr to 3.0 mm/yr may appear to be drastic, but let's look at it realistically.

       You are ignoring the "per year" aspect of a 2.5mm/yr increase. Ten years, 25 mm. Fifty years, 125 mm. Beyond this, storm surges and other factors make periodic maximums even larger. Also, sea level changes are not homogeneous. This is a global average, but individual changes can be much, much greater, due to regional effects. Places like the Netherlands and New Orleans are also already dangerously below sea level. Meanwhile, for many ecosystems parts of the world, even this seemingly small change is large. Your provision anecdotal examples of cases where changes are not relevant says nothing about the frequency or importance of cases where it is.
       Moderator Response: [mc] fixed closing blockquote tag
78276. sidd at 02:33 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       To follow up to my own post: The hansen energy imbalance paper provides various estimates of contributions to heat uptake http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf sidd
78277. apiratelooksat50 at 01:48 AM on 31 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       Muoncounter @ 40 A change from 0.5 mm/yr to 3.0 mm/yr may appear to be drastic, but let's look at it realistically. Pull the plug out of your iPod earbuds. The width of that plug is roughly 0.12 inches = 3 mm. That is certainly adaptable by plants, animals, and human animals. Coastal marshes can change annually from salt to brackish to fresh. So, your statement about saltwater intrusion destroying wetlands is only partially correct. You would need to read more than the abstract in the link provided. The interface between land and sea is dynamic and there is always a battle between the creation and destruction of land. On the Waccamaw River in coastal SC, where I used to live and still maintain a home, we witnessed a massive saltwater intrusion that killed freshwater species many miles upstream. The cause was an extended drought and not sea level rise. As the drought abated over the next few years, we witnessed a change back to the brackish and freshwater species. The smaller freshwater species recovered more quickly than the larger ones such as bald cypress. This is a nice powerpoint on a Delaware Estuary Study Also, anthropogenic pressures on tidally influenced freshwater streams and estuaries largely come from urbanization, improper land use practices, impervious cover, dredging and any change to the hydrology of the stream. One of the major problems in the loss of the Louisiana wetlands were the creation of dams, levees and canals which increased the rate of water flow and did not allow the usual sedimentation to occur. From Louisiana State University "During the last few decades, the human factor in wetland loss has increased drastically. The placement of dams and levees across and along the tributaries and distributaries of the Mississippi River have reduced both the amount and texture of sediment reaching the coast." [inflamatory snipped]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please stick to the science and leave the moderation to the moderators.
78278. sidd at 01:31 AM on 31 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Is there an estimate with error bars of continental heat uptake ? I have seen estimates of 0.75x10^22 J but with no error bars Thanx sidd
78279. Composer99 at 00:54 AM on 31 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Thanks again, Sphaerica @87; I've linked to your summary at the Bad Astronomy thread.
78280. Bob Lacatena at 00:47 AM on 31 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       85, Composer99, A quick summary of RC's key points:
       • Not all satellite datasets give the same extreme result... they chose the one that makes their claim look best
       • The paper lacks the supporting statistical information to make it credible
       • The paper lacks the information to make it repeatable
       • Those two items alone demonstrate very shoddy peer review
       • The journal it was published in is in no way a credible climate science or atmospheric physics journal
       • RC's own similar analysis shows different results (and these are clearly provided by them)
       • The overly simplistic model is one that Spencer has used before and has already been proven to be grossly flawed and easily manipulated to produce any desired result, and so is wholly improper in its use in this context
       • Like Lindzen before them, in order to use such a small time frame, Spencer uses ENSO warming as a proxy for climate change without accounting for the fact that ENSO is very different from actual climate change, and is not a forcing itself
       • Their conclusions about climate sensitivity are incorrect and unsupportable
78281. Bob Lacatena at 00:39 AM on 31 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       85, Composer99, The RC post is pretty specific, and pretty scathing. They apparently agree with my assessment that their conclusions about climate sensitivity are invalid, and also find numerous flaws in the methodology, and do a pretty darn good job of backing up that claim. What's their bottom line?

       The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).

78282. Composer99 at 00:22 AM on 31 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Thanks, Sphaerica.
78283. Bob Lacatena at 00:11 AM on 31 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       80, Composer99, An oft repeated quote in the blog entries I've found (I'll trust Trenberth over Spencer any day of the week, year, decade or century):

       "I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

78284. Bob Lacatena at 23:58 PM on 30 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       80, Composer99, RealClimage did just yesterday do something with this here. And the blog post I just linked to also has this analysis.
78285. Bob Lacatena at 23:55 PM on 30 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       80, Composer99, A quick google search did find this: No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
78286. Bob Lacatena at 23:52 PM on 30 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       80, Composer99, It was only just published days ago, so I'm sure it will take a while for even serious blog criticisms, let alone rebuttals, although except for reputation and past performance, there's no reason on the surface to believe what the paper says is entirely wrong. I'm only just reading it right now, but an early assessment based on the conclusions, from a purely amateur point of view, is that I don't believe these findings in any way affect climate sensitivity. They may affect the rate of warming due to the rise in CO₂, and so arriving at the final temperature setting for the level of CO₂ we pump into the atmosphere may take longer. That would, in fact, be somewhat in keeping with what we are observing. It would also be dangerous, because it could lead to a false sense of security that climate sensitivity is low. That would cause us to burn more fossil fuels, and raise CO₂ levels even higher, when that end result could be totally untenable for the poor souls that have to live in those conditions long after we're gone. And they'll have to find a way to combat those conditions without any fossil fuels as even a minor factor in the battle, because by then they'll be all gone, or the atmosphere will be so badly polluted with CO₂ that they won't dare to add a single additional ppm. But simply because the planet is able to shed heat more quickly, to me, does not imply low climate sensitivity, but rather only a slower rate of warming. The final temperature will be the same. So while the paper's results may be correct, I'm not entirely sure that the conclusions they make properly follow those observations. But, as I said, I haven't yet read the full paper, and I don't think the people who are truly qualified to do so will be able to get to it for some time yet.
78287. Composer99 at 23:48 PM on 30 July 2011
       OA not OK part 11: Did we do it? Yes we did!
       I for one appreciate the careful, step by step nature of this series of articles, each one laying out some single element of the problem of ocean acidification.
78288. Composer99 at 23:33 PM on 30 July 2011
       Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
       Since this is a post on the subject of Forbes magazine, I don't feel too bad bringing up another Forbes article on the subject of global warming (my link is to astronomer Phil Plait's blog Bad Astronomy). The author is using Spencer & Braswell 2011 to support his claim. Unfortunately, Phil doesn't link to an article or blog post specifically critiquing flaws in Spencer & Braswell's paper. Having done a search on Skeptical Science using the phrase 'spencer 2011' I do not think any such rebuttal has occured here. Anyone familiar with the reaction to Spencer & Braswell 2011? Will there perhaps be a Skeptical Science post on the paper?
78289. Ken Lambert at 23:32 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Albatros #51 "Now with that all said, it does appear that the rate of increase in GSL may have slowed since around 2004. Unfortunately, this has led some people to get very excited as to the perceived implications (not only now but down the road too), and make such ludicrous assertions such as made by BP @ 41:" Why would you use the term 'ludicrous'? I checked the numbers BP offered up in support of his argument and they are correct. Furthermore, your quotation: "The analysis reveals that an 8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional [0-700 m]. It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely as a result of El Nino variability on decadal timescales, and by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation." "There is the (possible) mechanism required for the increase in deep ocean heat content that the "skeptics" keep whining about." So it is 'whining' when skeptics point out inconsistencies in the AGW science, but it is OK for the AGW protagnists to offer only 'possible' mechanisms as evidence for maintaining a 0.39W/sq.m global warming imbalance, let alone a 0.9W/sq.m which is still being held fast by Dr Trenberth. Dr Trenberth responded on the **'Trenberth on Tracking...' SKS thread recently.. "ENSO involves a redistribution of OHC and losses to the atmosphere in the latter part of El Nino, and gains during La Nina, so this is internal to the climate system, not external (comment 31). The southern ocean is clearly playing a role (comments 48, 49)in taking up heat and mixing it deep, even though the magnitude of the observed warming is small. But the data are fragmentary and unsatisfactory in many respects. Nonetheless, the southern oceans, while playing some role, are not the main place where the heat goes in our model. We have a paper submitted that describes and documents that in more detail so it is premature to go into detail here." When does ENSO become an 'external' and not an 'internal' forcing of the climate system? El Nino and La Nina cycles are NOT 10 years apart. Dr Trenberth seems to be offering another 'model' in his upcoming paper rather than actual observations. We will read it with great interest. This is what Dr Trenberth** said on SKS about the 'Asian sulphates' explanation for the stasis in surface temperatures: "There is discussion in the comments of the supposed finding that increasing aerosol (pollution) from China may be the explanation for the stasis in surface temperatures and I do not believe this for a moment. Similarly, Jim Hansen has discussed the role of aerosol as a source of discrepancy. However, the radiation measurements at the top of the atmosphere from satellites (CERES) include all of the aerosol effects, and so they are not extra. They may well be an important ingredient regionally, and I have no doubt they are, but globally they are not the explanation." Sot there still remains the fundamental inconsistency in the AGW science - CO2GHG and its climate feedbacks are supposed to be producing an increasing imbalance at TOA and increasing surface warming and observations over the last 6-10 years show that this is not happening.
78290. Composer99 at 23:18 PM on 30 July 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Dave123, you can use HTML tags for italics, embedding pictures, and the like, using the triangular open & close brackets.

       ---

       Back on topic, that Ridley has adopted both an extreme market libertarian position with regards to the role of government and a contrarian position with regards to climate change (or at least with regards to its consequences) strikes me as verging on crank magnetism. Again, all the more surprising given his apparent familiarity with collective action problems (of which prisoner's dilemmas are a principal component).
78291. Albatross at 16:37 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Re the GSL rise, some "skeptics" here are suggesting that the ARGO data are too short to arrive at a discernible trend between 2005 and 2010. Yet, another "skeptic" on the same thread wants to try and convince us that the rate of increase in GSL is decelerating at a significant rate over the same period using such scientific and compelling language as "for all practical purposes.". Well sorry, that does not cut it. So what do the experts in the field say concerning the rate of GSL rise (note the error bars)? "GMSL Rates CU: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr AVISO: 3.22 ± 0.6 mm/yr CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)" [Source] Now with that all said, it does appear that the rate of increase in GSL may have slowed since around 2004. Unfortunately, this has led some people to get very excited as to the perceived implications (not only now but down the road too), and make such ludicrous assertions such as made by BP @ 41: "In this case current rate of ocean warming is 0.2°C/century and land based ice is not in immediate peril. I can live with that." To assert that is absurd, and just bad science period. Because, as found by Katsman and Oldenborgh (2011): "The analysis reveals that an 8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional [0-700 m]. It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely as a result of El Nino variability on decadal timescales, and by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation." There is the (possible) mechanism required for the increase in deep ocean heat content that the "skeptics" keep whining about. They go on to claim that: "Recently-observed changes in these two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an up- coming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat content." We'll have to wait and see, b/c if aerosols are indeed a role player it might not be internal variability that is explaining all of this. That is, this has all been further complicated by the huge increase in sulphate aerosols from Asia in the last decade, not to mention by a prolonged solar minimum. Last, but not least, "skeptics" seem very fond of ignoring error bars and uncertainty (but only when trying to make claims that it is not bad of course). The estimate of ice sheet loss, GSL rise and OHC are not hard and fast numbers that one can use make grandiose and bold deductions and predictions about with simple back-of-the envelope calculations.
78292. Albatross at 16:07 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Camburn, Might I also suggest that you read the main post and the paper by von Shuckmann and Le Traon. The trend in OHC (down to 1500 m) was not the main objective of their paper (as indicated by the title "How well can we derive Global Ocean Indicators from Argo data?"), they also have some caveats in there, such as: "Note that our estimations provide an estimation of errors on the trend over a given time period. Such trends even if they are statistically significant cannot be interpreted as long term trends as they are certainly influenced by interannual signals." But when speaking to claims made by some "skeptics" that the oceans have not been accumulating heat since 2004, these data are appropriate , and show such bold (and premature) assertions to be demonstrably false. PS: Disappointing that you so uncritically and unskeptically accept Spencer and Braswell's latest poor effort as some kind of silver bullet. It has not taken long for the real scientists to refute it, see here and here.
78293. Albatross at 15:45 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Rob P @45, Nice find. I also found this summary of the Loeb et al. paper on the intertubes: "In a recent study (Loeb et al. 2011) Co-Chair Norman Loeb addresses a seemingly contradictory issue with respect to observed interannual variations in net TOA radiation and ocean heat storage raised by Trenberth and Fasullo (2010). On a global annual scale, interannual variations in net TOA radiation and ocean heat storage should be correlated, since oceans serve as the main reservoir for heat added to the Earth-atmosphere system. Wong et al. (2006) showed that these two data sources are in good agreement for 1992–2003. In the ensuing 5 years, however, Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) note that the two diverge from one another. The new paper by Loeb and co-authors uses improved satellite top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation measurements and a new analysis of ocean heat content data to show that while Earth’s energy imbalance and ocean heating rate have exhibited variability consistent with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), there is no evidence of a decline during the past decade. Satellite observations of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net radiation constrained by recent in situ ocean heat content data indicate that during the past decade Earth has been accumulating energy at the rate 0.52 ±0.43 Wm–2. These results suggest that although Earth’s surface has not warmed significantly during the 2000s, energy is continuing to accumulate in the sub-surface ocean at a rate consistent with anthropogenic radiative forcing." [Source] Interesting times.
78294. scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       By the way, I am perfectly aware of where to get the SL data from - just not how BP got his error bars.
78295. Derek B at 14:39 PM on 30 July 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
       I have a problem with the whole S&B approach. They regressed F (the independent variable) against T (the dependent variable). In stats that's a howler. The right procedure is the inverse, estimating 1/alpha from (in their notation) -Sum{N.F}/Sum{F.F}. Given that S&B's motivation was: "While it is true that the processes that cause the X terms are, by FG’s definition, uncorrelated to T, the response of T to those forcings cannot be uncorrelated to T" this may well be significant. It would certainly be interesting to rerun their model on that basis. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, yet no-one else seems to have picked it up.
78296. scaddenp at 14:36 PM on 30 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       EtR - because as temperature warms sealevel will rise and they will get their share. "Recently" I hope means you are thinking "since 1950" - no cherry picks. Those places not where I expect sealevel to rise fastest - just where I expect the effect of sealevel rise to be most severe. And no, of course I dont expect to stay in their houses and drown. I expect reduced food production from salt incursion and migration into places which are already crowded - unless you are offering a home?
78297. actually thoughtful at 14:20 PM on 30 July 2011
       How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
       At night, CO2 and clouds would deliver very similar effects. Obviously the cloud cover amplifies the CO2. I think this is fairly well established (except for those who reject the science).
78298. actually thoughtful at 13:17 PM on 30 July 2011
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       The fallacy is the premise that government spending is "waste" or negative. A person employed by the government has an income, contributes to society and pays taxes. There are some areas where governments are inefficient (do you want the government pricing bread?). And there are areas where they are inefficient by design (blowing things up, and then often paying to rebuild the things they blew up (this is sometimes called "war")). But there are other times when the government is the only possible solution - national defense (note two sides to that coin), who but governments could have started the space race? Governments are good with things like safety nets and public safety - they can think in 100 year increments, instead of the next quarter ("Can think" and "do think" are different). But many people start with the assumption that government is bad, and because they start with a false premise, their conclusions may be valid, invalid or pointless - we have no way of knowing, because the premise is false ("If the moon is made of cheese then we will solve global warming tomorrow").
78299. muoncounter at 13:11 PM on 30 July 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       EtR#41: "Do you expet people to remain in their homes while the water rises?" I suppose they could start by building boats. But here's a more sobering opinion from Mumbai, India: The other consequences such as rise in deaths from vector-borne diseases, dislocation due to floods and sea-level rise have been shown as projected economic losses for the years 2025 and 2050. The economic costs of sea-level rise in terms of loss of property along the coastline have also been projected for a 25- and 50-year timescale respectively. The costs arising due to increase in malaria, diarrhoea and leptospirosis outbreaks have been projected till 2050. The conservative estimate of total costs of all these impacts, including the impact of climate change on tourism, are found to be enormous. Yep, a leptospirosis outbreak sure would hurt tourism.
78300. Eric the Red at 13:04 PM on 30 July 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Thanks for the paper Rob. I agree that the aerosols are a prime suspect for the recent slowdown. Although I have not ruled out other possibilities yet.

Prev  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  Next